• Pika@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    7 months ago

    So then if they are being unreasonable her suggestion should be that they pay for the bulldoze correct? unless I missed it somewhere I have not seen it posted she suggested this at all.

    • M0oP0o
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Once again, she is under no obligation to suggest anything. The developers here did not make an oopsie this is full blown criminal and they are lucky that the law does not treat companies the same as individuals. If you or I did anything like this (trespassing, conversion, destruction of property, extortion, fraud etc.) we would not be free to carry on.

      • Pika@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        like stated prior, while she is under no obligation to suggest anything, the fact that she did not at all indicates her intention

        • M0oP0o
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          7 months ago

          And her intention has nothing to do with anything in this case, no ones intentions here do. This is sadly not a criminal matter (it should have been) so other then modifying damages intent has no real bearing here.

        • SRo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          7 months ago

          What I don’t get is what’s with you suggesting that her wanting the house for herself is a somewhat morally wrong thing. It’s her house. Idiots build it on her land; tough luck shitheads, it’s hers now.